Appeal No. 2000-0588 Page 12
Application No. 08/824,110
(Simon & Schuster, Inc. 1988)). As discussed above, in interpreting claims in
proceedings before the PTO, the words in the claim are given their broadest reasonable
meaning in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise
that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's
specification. Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054, 44 USPQ2d at 1027. Absent an express
definition in their specification, the fact that appellants can point to definitions or usages
that conform to their interpretation does not make the PTO's definition unreasonable
when the PTO can point to other sources that support its interpretation. Id., 127 F.3d at
1056, 44 USPQ2d at 1029. In this case, appellants have not provided an express
definition of the term “coupled” in their specification which would require any more than
an association between the switch and the handset. In that a switch of the type taught
by Nakajima, provided on the Wingate telephone as proposed by the examiner,
contacts and senses the removal of the handset 18, it is “coupled to [associated with]
the handset” as called for in claim 12.
Having found appellants’ argument as to the patentability of claim 12 over
Wingate in view of Nakajima unpersuasive, we shall sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claim 12. As the additional features recited in dependent claims 15 and 16 are
disclosed by Wingate (see column 2, line 64 et seq.), we shall sustain the rejection of
these claims as well.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007